In many outdoor activities, it has been recognized that either participants or spectators often wish to have accessibility to some type of drinking apparatus. Typically, the type of activity involved, and the demands on the participant or spectator, dictate the specific needs and desires relating to the drinking apparatus. For example, in distance running or bicycling events, it is common for an athlete to carry some type of drinking reservoir so that periodically the athlete may take a drink. Indeed, in many lengthy competitive activities, it is imperative that the participant have access to fluid to replenish body fluids otherwise lost during the activity.
As a specific example, in distance bicycling events, it is common and well known in the art for each bicycle to be mounted with one or more drinking bottle cages, each capable of holding a drinking bottle somewhere along the frame of the bicycle. When the cyclist becomes thirsty, he or she may reach down and withdraw the bottle from its respective cage, take a drink from the bottle, and return it to its cage. While this approach permits the cyclist access to a desirable fluid, it has numerous disadvantages. One disadvantage is the physical manipulation required for the cyclist to withdraw the bottle from its cage. In particular, often the bottle is mounted somewhere below the seat of the bicycle and, as a result, the cyclist is forced to bend in an uncomfortable and unsafe position to reach the bottle. Thus, in addition to providing discomfort to the cyclist, he or she is put in an awkward and unsafe position which could cause the bicycle to become unstable and fall. Still further, the drinking activity is distracting to the cyclist, which is therefore both unsafe and time consuming. Moreover, in withdrawing and replacing the bottle into its respective cage, the cyclist may drop the bottle along the path of travel, thereby forcing the cyclist either to expend valuable time in retrieving the bottle or continuing his or her travels with no further access to a drink. Still further, a dropped bottle poses a safety hazard to cyclists behind the rider who dropped his or her bottle. Indeed, many bicycle accidents have occurred where trailing riders ran over a dropped bottle, thereby causing them to lose their balance and fall to the ground.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,095,812, issued to Rowe on Jun. 20, 1978 (the '812 patent). The '812 patent illustrates a bicycling drinking apparatus which attempts to solve some of the problems described above. Specifically, the bicycle drinking apparatus includes a water bottle having a flexible tube which extends from the bottle to a position proximate the cyclist's mouth. The tube is further wound through a reel-type device which allows the cyclist to extend the tube to his or her mouth for sucking fluid from the bottle and, thereafter, reeling the tube back to a retracted position such that it is no longer accessible to the cyclist's mouth. Thus, this system prevents the cyclist from having to withdraw and replace the fluid bottle into its cage each time the cyclist desires to take a drink.
While easing the burden of having to manipulate the bottle, however, the system of the '812 patent includes several disadvantages. One disadvantage is that the cyclist is still required to conduct detailed physical manipulations to withdraw and retract the drinking tube each time a drink is taken. As a result, again the concentration of the cyclist is taken off the immediate challenge of operating the bicycle and placed instead on the task of taking a drink. Again, therefore, valuable time and safety is compromised at the expense of providing a drink to the cyclist.
Yet another and, perhaps, more significant disadvantage with the system in the '812 patent is the amount of suction demanded in order to bring fluid to the operator's mouth. Specifically, each time an operator of the Rowe system wishes to take a drink, he or she must apply a sufficient amount of suction to draw fluid from the bottle, through the entire length of the tube, to the mouth of the operator. As a result, it should be appreciated that a great deal of suction strength is likely exhausted each time a drink is taken. Naturally, over a repeated number of drinks, this activity could exhaust the cyclist. Indeed, during an aerobic exercise activity, such as a lengthy race under extreme conditions, this additional need to repeatedly apply suction to the tube could be dangerously tiring and could interfere with the normal breathing activity of the cyclist.
Another prior art approach to some of the above-referenced problems has been to provide a pressurized fluid bottle having a tube extending toward the user's mouth. A valve is disposed at the end of the pressurized tube so that the operator may actuate the valve with his or her teeth. More specifically, when the operator wishes to take a drink, he or she bites onto the valve, thereby permitting the pressurized water to pass through the valve and into the operator's mouth. While this system avoids the suction problems associated with the Rowe system described above, it is necessarily mechanically complex. In addition, its complexity requires that the ultimate device be relatively expensive and, therefore, its cost may be prohibitive to casual bicycle riders or joggers. An additional drawback of this system may arise from a failure in the pressurization mechanism. Specifically, if this pressurization system should fail, the system is rendered useless to the operator and, therefore, the operator is left with no fluid to drink. Thus, if the system is being used in a long-distance bicycle race or the like, its failure could be critical as it may leave the operator with no fluid for the duration of the race.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a drinking apparatus which is capable of storing a desired amount of fluid, and providing an operator access to the fluid when desired.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a drinking apparatus which provides access to the fluid stored within the drinking apparatus with little or no hand manipulation required by the user.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a drinking apparatus which provides access to the fluid stored within the drinking apparatus while requiring a minimal amount of suction.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a minimal amount of complexity to the system, thereby reducing the possibility of system failure and cost.
Still further objects and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art having reference to the following specification together with its drawings.